Prediction Round 18, 2024: Changes vs Brisbane

[stallon]

Ins: HEdwards, Dewar, Maric, Culley, Hall
Outs: Gov, JJ, Rotham, Darling, Kelly/Yeo
Optional move is Chesser out for Johnston, but that might be 1 move too many this week.
5 changes, with 3 old fellas and 2 list cloggers out for 4 guys 21 or under and HEdwards is a step in the right direction

Defenders: Barrass, HEdwards, Hough, Cole, Reid, Hunt, Witherden
Midfielders: Yeo/Kelly, Culley, Maric, Chesser, Ginbey, Hall, Duggan
Rucks: Flynn, JWilliams
Forwards: Allen, Waterman, Cripps, Ryan, Brockman, Hutchinson, Dewar

FB: Hough HEdwards, Cole
HB: Reid, Barrass Hunt
C: Maric Ginbey Chesser
HF: Cripps Allen Ryan
FF: Hutchinson Waterman Dewar
R: Flynn Duggan Yeo/Kelly
Int: JWilliams Brockman Culley Witherden
sub: Hall

Still like the team I put here. A bigger, slower midfield but a much nicer half back setup with Hunt and Reid

With Gov out for likely a few weeks minimum, may as well finish him up for the year. Give HEdwards the spot for the rest of the year, then in a couple of weeks Bazzo can hopefully push to take the 3rd tall spot. Id consider playing Hough as a 3rd tall for a few weeks if Bazzo isnt in the side just to see what happens considering he trained as a 3rd tall in the preseason. I just dont want Rotham or JJ in the side again. Witherden is ok for now, if we throw magnets he can be moved out though.

 

[stallon]

In's
Hewett
Culley
Maric
Hall
Burgiel
J Williams
Archer Reid.

Out
Gov inj
Darling
Jones
Witho
Cole
B Williams.
Brockman.

May sound funny but here is away to get Archer Reid into fwd line.

Drop Darling, Flynn & B Williams. We got all these other tall fwd types in Culley, Hutchinson & Maric.

Use J Williams as Ruck rotate him with Archer Reid. I'd like to see Allen, Waterman & A Reid as the 3 tall fwds.

Jack Williams and Archer Reid are not ruckmen, they are forwards who are tall enough to pinch hit in the ruck.

 

[ghostbat12]

If simmo is still the coach:

In: gaff, sheed, Flynn,

Out: Reid, ginbey and j Williams.

 

[ArdentEagle]

My take on what I'd like to see.

I think this side sis much more dynamic.






Hough Hedwards Ginbey

Duggan Barrass Ryan

Hunt Kelly Maric

Cripps Waterman Dewar

Brockman Allen Hutch

Ruck: Williams Yeo Reid

Bench: Jwilliams , Chesser (back), Hall, Culley

Sub: Witho



Out: Gov (Inj) , Darling, JJ , Rotham, Cole
In: Hedwards, Maric , Hall, Culley, Dewar

 

[06Premiers]

Pure hypothetical/wishful thinking (without going too far the other way)

FB: Cole, Barrass, Hough
HB: Ginbey, HEdwards, Hunt
C: Maric, Culley, Kelly
HF: Cripps, Allen, Ryan
FF: Dewar, Waterman, Jilliams
R: Billiams, Reid, Yeo
I: Trew, Hall, Duggan, Hutchinson
S: Hewett

Culley, Hall, Trew & HEdwards need to be given the rest of the season to prove themselves. I'd keep the 3 out of contract guys regardless, but I'm just a keyboard warrior.

Team selection has consistently been ridiculous, so I've gone with 7 changes from the weekend's game.
I'd argue this team makes a hell of a lot more sense than WTF team was selected (Jilliams as sub?!), and actually resembles a team in rebuild mode.

1. Gov out for HEdwards (give Gov as long as he needs to recover from yet another rib injury)
2. Chesser out for Hall (Chess needs a rest & may as well carry Hall instead)
3. Jones out for Culley (play him inside mid & move TK outside - where they both were drafted!)
4. Darling out for Dewar (love JD, but it's time & team far too tall)
5. Witherden out for Maric (give him a chance on the wing & move Ginbey to HBF)
6. Rotham out for Trew (again, give him a chance, reward WAFL form & move Duggan back to defence)
7. Brockman out for Hewett (bring Jilliams into team, absolutely idiotic decision as sub)

 

[sey666]

I just rate players on more than disposal account. That’s just ridiculously basic analysis.

Langdon had a 5%-10% higher afl player rating in his third year. That’s a fact. I understand if you don’t rate that model but its a lot better than disposal count.

No, not just disposals. Have a look at the above comparison - Langdon at the same age, performed better than Chesser in all key categories (clearances, I50s, meters gained, tackles, etc..).

Also, it is NOT 5%-10% change in ratings. Langdon's rating (6.82) is 11.25% higher than that of Chesser (6.13). I think these ratings are calculated over a 2-year period. So the fact that Chesser played more gmes (30 vs Langdon's 25) in the past 2 years could have inflated Chesser's rating somewhat. In any case, 11.25% change in player ratings between two very average players is certainly significant. Saying that their performances are exactly the same based on that is just silly.

Anyway, I assume you will come up with some other insignificant fact to justify your wild remark which is clearly false.

Edit: Actually Langdon played even less (23 not 25 as above) in the 2-year period. So Chesser played 7 more games. When you play more games it obviously gives you more opportunities to impact your team's performance either positively or negatively (this is how ratings are calculated). It is likely that Langdon may have got 8.89 rating points in the same number of games as Chesser. Obviously this is may not be correct because I don't know the exact method they use to calculate these ratings. However, based on the comparison I posted earlier 8.89 or so ranking points for Langdon in 30 games is more likely than unlikely. 8.89 or so vs 6.13 makes your claim even sillier.

Sorry everybody I apologise because this has nothing to do with the changes for the Brisbane game.

 

[CountryLad]

My take on what I'd like to see.

I think this side sis much more dynamic.






Hough Hedwards Ginbey

Duggan Barrass Ryan

Hunt Kelly Maric

Cripps Waterman Dewar

Brockman Allen Hutch

Ruck: Williams Yeo Reid

Bench: Jwilliams , Chesser (back), Hall, Culley

Sub: Witho



Out: Gov (Inj) , Darling, JJ , Rotham, Cole
In: Hedwards, Maric , Hall, Culley, Dewar

Agree mate I just had Maric as the third tall Defender would love to see him given a go in that role. Would be interesting to see if he can play long term on the wing. Simmo’s game plan makes it a pretty brutal spot to play.
Mind you Simmo won’t be coach for much longer.

 

[Dark Sharks]

Lol asking Jilliams and Areid to carry the ruck against Big O. That’s sure to end well.

True, but if we also bring Livingston in as the sub, we can TRIPLE team Big O and make out like absolute geniuses at the selection table.


Who says no?

 

[Mulldogg]

Surely they give Trew a crack this week as part of the CBD rotation? Ginbey either goes to Chesser’s wing or into the backline. Duggan shouldn’t be getting any more CBAs and Ryan should only be used sparingly as a change up.

Plenty of scope to have him as an extra inside mid along with Kelly, Yeo and Reid. TK is better on the outside or could even be pushed forward as he was so successfully at Geelong (and South Freo before he was drafted).

You’ve gotta reward WAFL performances and explore the list. I’d normally suggest Hall, given he is far more likely to remain on the list next year, but frankly his form doesn’t warrant selection.

All well and good to say about Trew “the coaches see him at training, they know he’s not up to the level” but it’s funny that he’s putting up really good numbers at WAFL level; so much so that Peel/Freo sent Cooper Simpson to him in a run with role on the weekend hence the lower than usual output (still 21 disposals).

EDIT - just came across this Nathan Schmook article which is on a similar vein after posting this

Eye to the future: How Eagles can salvage something from dire season

West Coast needs to get all the information they can on their playing list from the final seven weeks of their season, writes Nathan Schmook

www.afl.com.au

 

[squashface]

In: Hedwards, Maric, Culley, Hall, Dewar
Out: Gov, Darling, Rotham, Witherden, Jones

B: Hough Barrass Cole
HB: Duggan Hedwards Chesser
C: Hunt Yeo Maric
HF: Cripps Waterman Ryan
F: Jilliams Allen Dewar

R: Billiams, Kelly, Reid

I/C: Culley, Hall, Ginbey, Hutchinson

S: Brockman

Culley as a fwd/mid rotation to switch with Reid
Ginbey as a def/mid rotation to switch with Chesser
Maric gets to play a game on the wing without getting subbed (and none of this red wing gimp shit)

 

[stallon]

Do not want Trew back in the side, same as Rotham and JJ, and anybody else who is going to be delisted. We need list spots and guys like Trew are just not a part of the future, he will never be a part of an AFL clubs best 22.

Hall doesnt need games, hes not going anywhere so its not a huge deal if he doesnt play this year.

Id like Burgiel to at least get 1 game if he still has any interest at being at the club. If he wants to go home then just leave him in the WAFL.

 

[Hoskin300]

No, not just disposals. Have a look at the above comparison - Langdon at the same age, performed better than Chesser in all key categories (clearances, I50s, meters gained, tackles, etc..).

Also, it is NOT 5%-10% change in ratings. Langdon's rating (6.82) is 11.25% higher than that of Chesser (6.13). I think these ratings are calculated over a 2-year period. So the fact that Chesser played more gmes (30 vs Langdon's 25) in the past 2 years could have inflated Chesser's rating somewhat. In any case, 11.25% change in player ratings between two very average players is certainly significant. Saying that their performances are exactly the same based on that is just silly.

Anyway, I assume you will come up with some other insignificant fact to justify your wild remark which is clearly false.

Edit: Actually Langdon played even less (23 not 25 as above) in the 2-year period. So Chesser played 7 more games. When you play more games it obviously gives you more opportunities to impact your team's performance either positively or negatively (this is how ratings are calculated). It is likely that Langdon may have got 8.89 rating points in the same number of games as Chesser. Obviously this is may not be correct because I don't know the exact method they use to calculate these ratings. However, based on the comparison I posted earlier 8.89 or so ranking points for Langdon in 30 games is more likely than unlikely. 8.89 or so vs 6.13 makes your claim even sillier.

Sorry everybody I apologise because this has nothing to do with the changes for the Brisbane game.

Its not calculated over two years lol. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Are you really going to pull me up on say 10% and not 11.25%? I apologise for the poor maths I guess.

I mean if you genuinely think 11.25% is 'significant' between players playing in two different teams i'm not sure what to say. All our young players would be 10% better playing in a functioning team. Regardless, that variance in rating is so small if you actually look at the range in player ratings per game. Players get anywhere from -2 to 20. A difference of 0.6 is insignificant.

I genuinely have no clue what you are going on about in the second big paragraph of text. Its an average per game. Where on earth has this number of 8.9 come from? Very strange to just make numbers up to make your argument make sense.

 

[Godfather32]

Its not calculated over two years lol. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Are you really going to pull me up on say 10% and not 11.25%? I apologise for the poor maths I guess.

I mean if you genuinely think 11.25% is 'significant' between players playing in two different teams i'm not sure what to say. All our young players would be 10% better playing in a functioning team. Regardless, that variance in rating is so small if you actually look at the range in player ratings per game. Players get anywhere from -2 to 20. A difference of 0.6 is insignificant.

I genuinely have no clue what you are going on about in the second big paragraph of text. Its an average per game. Where on earth has this number of 8.9 come from? Very strange to just make numbers up to make your argument make sense.

"A player's rating is determined by adding together his points tally based on a rolling window of the previous two seasons. For example, after round six of the 2013 season, a player's rating will be based on matches from round seven of the 2011 season onwards. However, only a player's most recent 40 matches are used in the calculation of his rating. This builds in a buffer for players missing matches through injury, suspension, omission or by not being involved in finals. A player's most recent 20 matches are given maximum weight in determining his rating and matches 21 through 40 are progressively reduced from 100 per cent weighting to five per cent for the earliest game in the window."

Player ratings: frequently asked questions

How does the revolutionary new Official AFL Player Ratings system work?

www.afl.com.au

 

[InTheWings]

Now that Gov is out...

Out: Gov, Darling, Jones, Witherden
In: H Edwards, Maric, Culley, Hall (sub)

Ginbey to the backline where he played his junior footy.
Rotham gets a reprieve because of Gov being out.

B: Hough Barrass Cole
HB: Duggan H Edwards Ginbey
C: Brockman Yeo Maric
HF: Cripps Waterman Ryan
F: J Williams Allen Culley

R: B Williams, Kelly, Reid
I/C: Rotham, Chesser, Hutchinson, Hunt
S: Hall

 

[sey666]

Its not calculated over two years lol. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Are you really going to pull me up on say 10% and not 11.25%? I apologise for the poor maths I guess.

Looks like you don't what you are talking about. Saying 5-10% is not the same as saying 11.25% or even 10%. Surely you can see the difference. Would you rather a 5-10% increase in your salary or a 11.25% increase? Don't quote numbers if you are going to be loose with the values.

I mean if you genuinely think 11.25% is 'significant' between players playing in two different teams i'm not sure what to say. All our young players would be 10% better playing in a functioning team. Regardless, that variance in rating is so small if you actually look at the range in player ratings per game. Players get anywhere from -2 to 20. A difference of 0.6 is insignificant.

Langdon played for Fremantle which finished 16th and 14th in 2016 and 2017 respectively. They were not a functioning team by any stretch of imagination. Fremantle did finish top 4 in 2015 but Langdon only played 2 games that year ( these 2 games may or may not have counted in his ratings). Again the rating difference is 0.69 which closer 0.7 than 0.6. Why do you always use a lower value? If I use the same logic I could 0.69 is almost the same as 1 and therefore Langdon's performance is 1 ranking point better than that Chesser. I still think 0.69 is significant partucularly when the rating range is small (22).

I genuinely have no clue what you are going on about in the second big paragraph of text. Its an average per game. Where on earth has this number of 8.9 come from? Very strange to just make numbers up to make your argument make sense.

Langdon gained 6.82 raking points in 23 games so that is 6.82/23 = 0.2965 ranking points a game. When you multiply that by 30 you will get the number of points he might have got in 30 games (this is just an approximation). So 0.2965x30 = 8.8956 possible ranking points for Langdon in 30 games vs Chesser's 6.13. That's a 2.76 ranking point difference and makes Langdon (at that time) almost 1.5 times the player Chesser is currently. If this doesn't make sense then show me how they actually calculate the ratings (since you seem to be some expert at this) and I will show you why my arguments are still valid and your wild claim is still rubbish.



Sorry again everybody for going off the thread topic.

 

[WCErevival]

Looks like you don't what you are talking about. Saying 5-10% is not the same as saying 11.25% or even 10%. Surely you can see the difference. Would you rather a 5-10% increase in your salary or a 11.25% increase? Don't quote numbers if you are going to be loose with the values.



Langdon played for Fremantle which finished 16th and 14th in 2016 and 2017 respectively. They were not a functioning team by any stretch of imagination. Fremantle did finish top 4 in 2015 but Langdon only played 2 games that year ( these 2 games may or may not have counted in his ratings). Again the rating difference is 0.69 which closer 0.7 than 0.6. Why do you always use a lower value? If I use the same logic I could 0.69 is almost the same as 1 and therefore Langdon's performance is 1 ranking point better than that Chesser. I still think 0.69 is significant partucularly when the rating range is small (22).



Langdon gained 6.82 raking points in 23 games so that is 6.82/23 = 0.2965 ranking points a game. When you multiply that by 30 you will get the number of points he might have got in 30 games (this is just an approximation). So 0.2965x30 = 8.8956 possible ranking points for Langdon in 30 games vs Chesser's 6.13. That's a 2.76 ranking point difference and makes Langdon (at that time) almost 1.5 times the player Chesser is currently. If this doesn't make sense then show me how they actually calculate the ratings (since you seem to be some expert at this) and I will show you why my arguments are still valid and your wild claim is still rubbish.



Sorry again everybody for going off the thread topic.

What rating points system are you referring to? I thought the AFL canned their one?

 

[Hoskin300]

Looks like you don't what you are talking about. Saying 5-10% is not the same as saying 11.25% or even 10%. Surely you can see the difference. Would you rather a 5-10% increase in your salary or a 11.25% increase? Don't quote numbers if you are going to be loose with the values.



Langdon played for Fremantle which finished 16th and 14th in 2016 and 2017 respectively. They were not a functioning team by any stretch of imagination. Fremantle did finish top 4 in 2015 but Langdon only played 2 games that year ( these 2 games may or may not have counted in his ratings). Again the rating difference is 0.69 which closer 0.7 than 0.6. Why do you always use a lower value? If I use the same logic I could 0.69 is almost the same as 1 and therefore Langdon's performance is 1 ranking point better than that Chesser. I still think 0.69 is significant partucularly when the rating range is small (22).



Langdon gained 6.82 raking points in 23 games so that is 6.82/23 = 0.2965 ranking points a game. When you multiply that by 30 you will get the number of points he might have got in 30 games (this is just an approximation). So 0.2965x30 = 8.8956 possible ranking points for Langdon in 30 games vs Chesser's 6.13. That's a 2.76 ranking point difference and makes Langdon (at that time) almost 1.5 times the player Chesser is currently. If this doesn't make sense then show me how they actually calculate the ratings (since you seem to be some expert at this) and I will show you why my arguments are still valid and your wild claim is still rubbish.



Sorry again everybody for going off the thread topic.

I quoted a rough range mate. If you are going to have a meltdown over being 1.25% off on my range I would say that says a lot about the quality of your argument. However I have apologised for my poor maths already. Fremantle were better than the eagles are now. You are getting worked up over me saying 0.6 rather than 0.7 in a system that typical rates players -2 to 25? Ive said this multiple times but its an average. What do you not understand about that? An average already takes into account the amount of games they have played ffs. I suggest actually learn the system and understand the numbers if you want to keep discussing this. If you had been looking at these numbers after each game you would know 6.13 vs 6.82 is very insignificant. Reid has an average of like 13 and the best players average like 18-20.

 

[Hoskin300]

"A player's rating is determined by adding together his points tally based on a rolling window of the previous two seasons. For example, after round six of the 2013 season, a player's rating will be based on matches from round seven of the 2011 season onwards. However, only a player's most recent 40 matches are used in the calculation of his rating. This builds in a buffer for players missing matches through injury, suspension, omission or by not being involved in finals. A player's most recent 20 matches are given maximum weight in determining his rating and matches 21 through 40 are progressively reduced from 100 per cent weighting to five per cent for the earliest game in the window."

Player ratings: frequently asked questions

How does the revolutionary new Official AFL Player Ratings system work?

www.afl.com.au

Go on wheelo and they just present it as a players season average. Dont know if the below link worked. Thats where the numbers are coming from.

AFL Player Profile

AFL Player Profile

www.wheeloratings.com

 

[Pottering]

Why have you linked me footywire? Use AFL player ratings which are either on the AFL website or on Wheelo. Langdon had a rating of 6.8 in his third year and Chesser has a rating of 6.2 in his third year.

I linked you to Footywire because your claim was comparing Langdon and Chesser using disposal stats. And if you look at the the disposal stats from Footywire you'll see you are totally wrong.

But apparently you prefer to change your argument midstream and switch to player ratings. That's generally called avoiding the issue.

 

[ToastieBoy18]

Harley is getting banged up and body language and output has been down, since returning since suspension.

I would be keen to see him at half back for a few weeks, with a clear direction to get the ball in his hands. He is our best kick along with Maric. This can release the shackles a little and allow him some freedom to get some easy ball and some confidence to run an attack the game. It also allows us to change our midfield mix and debut Hall.

Out - Gov, JJones, Rotham, Darling, BWilliams
In - HEdwards, Maric, Hall, Flynn, Dewar

Backs - Barrass, HEdwards, Cole, Hough, Hunt, Witherden, Reid
Mid - Kelly, Yeo, Hall, Ginbey, Chesser, Duggan, Maric
Ruck - Flynn, JWilliams
Forwards - Allen, Waterman, Ryan, Cripps, Brockman, Hutchison
Sub - Dewar

Hall to follow Dunkley around. Duggan to look after Neale. Witherden more of a lock down role now with Hunt and Reid in the back half.

Get the ball to Maric and Harley at all costs.

Smaller forward line to pressure the hell out of Brisbane backs every time the ball goes in.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

If Simmo does coach this week I would laugh and cry if he trolls everyone by naming Gaff and Sheed.

Would be amazing.

 

[sey666]

I quoted a rough range mate. If you are going to have a meltdown over being 1.25% off on my range I would say that says a lot about the quality of your argument. However I have apologised for my poor maths already. Fremantle were better than the eagles are now. You are getting worked up over me saying 0.6 rather than 0.7 in a system that typical rates players -2 to 25? Ive said this multiple times but its an average. What do you not understand about that? An average already takes into account the amount of games they have played ffs. I suggest actually learn the system and understand the numbers if you want to keep discussing this. If you had been looking at these numbers after each game you would know 6.13 vs 6.82 is very insignificant. Reid has an average of like 13 and the best players average like 18-20.

I already calculated the average for you in my previous post, you ignore it and keep posting some arbitrary rubbish - there is no point in replying to you. I suggest brushing up on your basic arithmetic skills or sticking to posting about things that you understand.
Anyway, I will just follow the advice of that Mark Twain quote that is in Obeanie1's signature and stop.

 

[Tugga27]

Been saying all year that JJ isn't AFL quality.

After seeing him like a statue on the mark last night OTC, only reaffirms my view.

We just need to put a line through Jones and Witherden.

They're taking us nowhere.

 

[RookiePick]

Out: Simpson

In: Sumich

 

[PremiershipNo4]

Very excited to see what the match committee do, it’s basically a free hit for interim coach.
Bring it on!